The drop / pendant earring...

[David1819]

GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY Roch,i may be fantasising now,but i would almost swear that we are looking at two different rifles here.And THAT would explain why the barrel is further up.Is there any way to compare the barrel lengths in the different photos,does one look longer to you.

You are indeed fantasising. 

[snow66!]

You are indeed fantasising. 

Thank you Dave,must have been a sudden brainstorm.

[Roch]

GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY Roch,i may be fantasising now,but i would almost swear that we are looking at two different rifles here.And THAT would explain why the barrel is further up.Is there any way to compare the barrel lengths in the different photos,does one look longer to you.

I don't think it's been suggested before. But if you think you're on to something, you should look in to it further. Don't let people with rigidly closed minds put you off.

[Roch]

The rifle has not been moved, for the same reason this pencil has not been moved. The space between the screen and the pencil, likewise the space between the rifle and Sheila's throat. In both cases all that has moved is the camera!

Nah. The rifle has been moved. This does not explain the difference in this particular instance. It merely shows that perspective and angle can act to visually distort in some instances.

[David1819]

Nah. The rifle has been moved. This does not explain the difference in this particular instance. It merely shows that perspective and angle can act to visually distort in some instances.

It has not been moved. Both photos have been taken at very different angles.

[lookout]

Another one for a Spec-savers appointment 

[lookout]

Look at Sheila's left hand/ arm in those two photographs.

You'll be saying she was clean next David.

[David1819]

Look at Sheila's left hand/ arm in those two photographs.

You'll be saying she was clean next David.

We know her hand was moved!

[Roch]

It has not been moved. Both photos have been taken at very different angles.

The differences in angles of photography are insufficient to explain the huge difference in the position of the rifle barrel end. 

[David1819]

The differences in angles of photography are insufficient to explain the huge difference in the position of the rifle barrel end.

Now you are just making things up. Use photogrammetry software like I have or hire a photogrammetry expert and see for yourself.

If you don't fancy that, get your wife/partner to lie down flat and put a broomstick on her left breast and see for yourself.

[Kestrel19]

Now you are just making things up. Use photogrammetry software like I have or hire a photogrammetry expert and see for yourself.

If you don't fancy that, get your wife/partner to lie down flat and put a broomstick on her left breast and see for yourself.

David - look at a picture of the rifle in the “lowered” position. The end of the barrel is not in contact with Sheila’s body, this can be seen by the shadow in the picture that you posted.
Now look at the close up pictures in the “raised” position the end of the barrel immediately before the silencer screw (forward of the forward sights) is in contact with her neck, it can be seen from several angles - this cannot be paralax error

[Roch]

Now you are just making things up. Use photogrammetry software like I have or hire a photogrammetry expert and see for yourself.

If you don't fancy that, get your wife/partner to lie down flat and put a broomstick on her left breast and see for yourself.

I was going to suggest you do the same. But I don't trust you wouldn't move the rifle.  Can't make head nor take of your pomegranate software.

[killingeve]

Its a void in the bloodstain. The photo has been manipulated to make it appear brighter than the rest of the fabric.

Yeah that's what it looks like to my untrained eye. 

[Kestrel19]

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=38630;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391;image

If these post correctly then hopefully it clearly shows the movement. The first photo looks to be taken from almost straight above - no paralax error on where the barrel is.
The second photo is from a side position clearly showing the Barrel well above the necklace line

[killingeve]

Pathological details which were irrelevant to whether or not she carried out the killings were not screened out. So there was no need for nicotined fingers to be missing. Nor stretch marks etc etc.

You cannot possibly know whether both had unblemished careers. QC recently showed that Knight was a pathologist for the prosecution in an MOJ (not that I am saying Knight did anything wrong - I am not familiar with the case).

You were recently shown that Vanezis was involved in a controversial Malaysian case, for the authorities. He was also involved in a UK wrongful conviction. Unless you have canvassed a sample of pathologists regarding PV's professional reputation, I doubt you can trumpet his rep here.

I'm afraid that the discovery of the pendant earring snagged on her nightdress is a case of sour grapes for you. It throws up all sorts of questions that you cannot allow your self to encompass.

If there was anything untoward they would have been struck off.

What aspects of the pathological evidence do you believe are harmful to Bamber?